The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Circumstantial but convincing evidence that analog is more realistic
Old 2nd April 2017
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Circumstantial but convincing evidence that analog is more realistic

Okay, i am not trying to get in a debate or rehash the analog vs digital debate, thats been done ad vomitum. They both work, and talking about which is better is boring. However, after hearing the chamberlin m1 keyboard from the 50s i think, and hearing the samples of horns and flute, and then listening to thw state of the art modern digital sample of brass from the korg kronos, i am convinced once again, despite whats on paper and specs, that digital is doing something that we cant quantify yet. I dont want to debate it, i just want to know you ideas about what it might be. Check these out:




We can speculate on the reasons, but does anyone disagree that the chamberlin sounds beyond a damn sight more realistic? It sounds like the horns could be in the room to me. Yet i have never heard a brass sample that fooled me. If digital is as perfect as it looks on paper, why does it sound so fake in some cases? And in my experience, reording to 1" 8 track also sounds more realistic than digital. Thats not necessarily good, and digital can sound more polished, but something is going on that we cant understand right now. Perhaps it has something to do with electromagnetic fields that cannot be captured in binary, i have no idea.please enlighten me.

Then again the analog sound of the chamberlin is being captured by digital so who the fock knows.

Last edited by psycho_monkey; 3rd April 2017 at 04:35 AM.. Reason: fixing the links
Old 3rd April 2017
  #2
Well, the Chamberlin was, like its successor, the Mellotron, basically a sort of analog tape ROMpler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlin


Seems to me the real problem with sample use in faking real instruments is the inherent inflexibility. But, of course, that applies to the old analog systems even more than digital, which potentially 'benefit' from modern DSP manipulations.

The most 'realistic' is a phrase sample, of course. Least flexible. Most 'identifiable.'* But most realistic.

With regard to why one might prefer one medium over another, I suspect it would have a lot to do with the sonic signature of the older tape based systems which are unique and flavorful. I wouldn't say that that sounds more 'realistic' though. Not by a long ways. I have to say the scat vocal ensemble on the Kronos was surprisingly good. A bit of a shocker. Other patches, not so much in the verisimilitude department. But that's the territory. It all depends on what you want.



* For those of us who dread having someone listen to our mixes and say, "Oh, I have that sample/loop!"

Last edited by theblue1; 3rd April 2017 at 04:09 AM..
Old 3rd April 2017
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post


* For those of us who dread having someone listen to our mixes and say, "Oh, I have that sample/loop!"
I am not taking about prefering either one, but to me the chamberlin sounds more realistic. Its not recorded properly, looks like a phone camera and mic from speakers, but still, from that and other videos i have seen, its a far more realistic rendering. The kronos samples I can tell immediately sound fake, whereas I wouldnt be able to tell if it was a real horn or not on the chamberlin, were it recorded correctly. I thought this was obvious, but perhaps we arent hearing the subtleties in the same way.

Again this is not about which fornat is better, i dont even care, i just thought this was a glaring example of analog sounding more realistic. But if you arent hearing it, perhaps its in my mind.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Don't know about sounding better but to my ears soundd like a tractor idling.

Cheers
Old 3rd April 2017
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
I am not taking about prefering either one, but to me the chamberlin sounds more realistic. Its not recorded properly, looks like a phone camera and mic from speakers, but still, from that and other videos i have seen, its a far more realistic rendering. The kronos samples I can tell immediately sound fake, whereas I wouldnt be able to tell if it was a real horn or not on the chamberlin, were it recorded correctly. I thought this was obvious, but perhaps we arent hearing the subtleties in the same way.

Again this is not about which fornat is better, i dont even care, i just thought this was a glaring example of analog sounding more realistic. But if you arent hearing it, perhaps its in my mind.
OK... I think I'm not understanding how you're using realistic.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeminiT View Post
I was reading a book years ago that spoke of how digital recording can not capture certain aspects of sound that can be captured with analog recording or tape. It got into scientific details that I won't even try to remember,but I do recall feeling it made total sense as to why when I record just my vocals with tape, it doesn't even matter if it's a cheap 4 track tascam, the sound is more like how I hear it when I sing to myself, and it's much easier to mix, but if I record that same vocal into the computer something unnatural happens to the sound of it. I don't like it. I consistently like my voice by itself when I'm doing vocals, but once it is recorded digitally something is lost,and it no longer sounds good to me. Whether it is low levels of noise, or whatever you wish to call it, it's something that is being clipped off once it is converted to digital data, and even if our ears can't actually identify what it is because of it being at such lower levels of volume, it's still there,and it still effects the sound. I think it's something we can actually feel, because it's low levels of vibration, and probably why some people say they can feel something more from analog recordings or analog gear.
Here's the deal: If you want to accurately reproduce an audio signal, modern digital produces a far more accurate copy (by every objective measure we have at our disposal) than does analog tape or grooved disk. The book you were reading years ago notwithstanding, the science of why this is so is not controversial or even arguable. Undoubtedly, that sounds doctrinaire, but if one takes the time to understand the physics of audio and the math of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem, it becomes head-slapping clear.

Now, what people prefer is a whole other matter, of course. That can't be objectively measured because it is the province of the individual (and probably of the individual at any one time in his life).

There can be all sorts of reasons one might prefer the greater distortion/lower fidelity/accuracy of analog over digital for one or more tasks. It's a matter of preference, personal aesthetic.

And, indeed, he might even reasonably describe it as giving him the impression of greater 'reality.' But he should not confuse that impression with objective, measurable reality.

I know that sounds pedantic but this is a very well-discussed topic and many have run out of patience for the 'post-factual' approach to an endeavor which is part art and part science. One can gracefully ignore the nitty gritty of the science and simply learn to use the engines of our art form -- but if he does, he should probably refrain from presenting personal theories or what I guess we might now call 'alternative' science.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #7
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
I leaves the question, if that what we perceive as sound is ONLY the vibration of air or if there is the possibility that there's other aspects playing into it as well we haven't considered. As an analogy, in the middle ages the model of matter had, for example concerning food, not only the aspects of dead matter but aspects of elements (today also found in ayurveda medicine) and "qualities" (later differentiated in vitamins and - depending on who you ask - information). To sum it up, if we consider our knowledge complete and rule out the possibility that there is more to know, pretending omniscience, we're in all likelyhood fooling ourself. Every time in history where science pretended they reached the end of what is to know about something, it was wrong. Even if the scientists didn't like it ;-) and fought tooth and nails to deny - remember the advent of quantum science? Remember "junk DNA"? The butt end of jokes today, like "bumblebees can't fly" or “Rail travel at high speeds is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” (quote Dionysius Lardner, who is to science today like the guy who turned down the Beatles because guitar music is over, a funny footnote in history)
Regarding the aspect of Nyquist's method and 44.1 sampling rate to accurately render vibration below it's border frequency, including phase and whatnot - IF, IFFF the engineering is solid (a completely different topic), that's working. It's still no proof that science ends here.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #8
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
All of these threads promise to be different than all the a Vers d threads... But they're all the same thread
Old 3rd April 2017
  #9
If I had to pick one for personal use I would have that Chamberlin thing....

It has this instant "film noir" thing going on.... love it !


Funny the damn thing is called Kronos, as that is the exact reason why we people don't see this world for what it really is... the illusion of time.

It's not a matter of digital or analog.... both can be very 'realistic' and both can sound crap, see, the signal is only a 'carier wave', the sound is only a 'carier wave' to the 'music', the real 'transmission' is always 'telepathic' but it does not work for us humans without the proper 'carier wave'... the quality of that 'carier wave' is very important for a 'clear transmission' so the listener can enjoy the music as it was intended.
Rules and regulations over time have changed the chemical composition of our 'carier wave devices' resulting in a smearing of our 'carier wave' by a different chemical imprinting from modern materials, be it analog or digital.

There is an aspect to music that travels faster than light, it reaches the heart before the sound reaches the ears....



Old 3rd April 2017
  #10
Lives for gear
The real problem is the limitation of the input. Midi was created w/ only volumes of 0-127. And sure there are controllers like pitch benders, modulators, etc... but they fall very short of capturing what a real instrument can do. Some of the newer stuff has gone to more velocity levels, but that does not handle the nuances of playing things.

Midi is better on percussion stuff than it is on things that have pitch bending. There are many input devices designed to help overcome this, the Seaboard comes to mind, but they still fall short.

I have spent tons of time trying to dial in a snare drums on drum brains and BFD3. The problem there is the mixture of rim and head. All the sample are organized to only be a rim or head hit with many levels mapping to many sounds. what I want in that case, is for a head level of say 64, I also want head 64+1% rim, Head 64+2%rim......head64+100% rim. you see the problem. within that say Head 64 +40% rim, did you hit the head or the rim first.....it sounds different on a real drum. This is just to point out that there are many combinations of how you handle a single snare hit.

Then you want to dig into high hat........I don't even want to get into that can of worms.

The sound samples are organized very simplistically vs. what can be done with the real stuff. This is because organizing them for how it really responds is not practical from a storage, recall, and input standpoint.

Sounds recording digital, or analog, or created using MIDI all have a place and all sound different. Use what works for your practical situation.

Now in this case, they programmed in some of how the samples are "off" the chamberlin may be using mechanical oscillators like a hammond organ that costs too much for modern production.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #11
Gear Guru
I disagree. I think it is very simple.

With the early tape based samplers (Mellotron, Chamberlain etc) they use very long samples - 8 seconds per note for the Mellotron. I'm guessing similar with the Chamberlain. So of course they sound realistic ... they are playing really long recordings of real instruments.

The problem with early digital samplers is that memory was very expensive - they simply could not record 8 seconds of sound - and certainly note for each note. So they used mere milliseconds of sound, then quickly looped the waveform as soon as they could. That left a fairly realistic attack, but the sustain part of the sound was basically a synth. They could filter and envelope and modulate and chorus and reverb etc - to try to make it sound more pleasing. But certainly not realistic.

For some reason, even though the cost of memory has plummeted - the big rompler companies are still selling mostly the same tired old sounds as they did in the 1980's, and still squeezing blood out of a tiny stone and using megabytes of memory instead of gigabytes. They are synths, really.

There are some sample libraries available for software samplers that use gigabytes of memory - and these can compare rather well with Mellotrons etc. You can even get the old Mellotron sound libraries as digital files - and as long as they are the same 8 seconds per note samples, they will sound basically the same.

Although digital samples are robotically exactly the same each time, and our brains pick up on that as being sterile. The tape based samplers had the advantage of a little mechanical instability, so the sound was very subtley different each time it played back. This can be recreated digitally, and it really lifts a sound.

I was only just messing around with a TC Mimiq pedal on a drum machine for this very same reason. Trying to see if it could introduce a little human variation into robotic patterns. It sort of does - I must get an update for this, because i'm hearing some cipping issues which I think they may have fixed.

But as far as realism goes ... orchestral concert recordings have been recorded to digital for years because it's more realistic. There is nothing wrong with digital if it's used properly. But comparing very short, looped and processed samples with very long samples is not comparing apples with apples.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #12
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
However, after hearing the chamberlin m1 keyboard from the 50s i think, and hearing the samples of horns and flute, and then listening to thw state of the art modern digital sample of brass from the korg kronos, i am convinced once again, despite whats on paper and specs, that digital is doing something that we cant quantify yet.

[...]

We can speculate on the reasons, but does anyone disagree that the chamberlin sounds beyond a damn sight more realistic? It sounds like the horns could be in the room to me. Yet i have never heard a brass sample that fooled me. If digital is as perfect as it looks on paper, why does it sound so fake in some cases?
Well, the Chamberlin sounds pretty darned awful if you ask me, and certainly inconsistent timbre.

The Korg stuff sounds quite processed.

You're comparing completely different source material.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #13
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
For some reason, even though the cost of memory has plummeted - the big rompler companies are still selling mostly the same tired old sounds as they did in the 1980's, and still squeezing blood out of a tiny stone and using megabytes of memory instead of gigabytes.
I think this is the library used in the above video?

Korg Kronos Brass - Vocals Suite

1Gb size, it looks like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
They are synths, really.
Or samples + synthesis as Sound on Sound calls it.

A proper "synth" for acoustic instruments would use physical modelling, not samples.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
Although digital samples are robotically exactly the same each time, and our brains pick up on that as being sterile.
Actually, some people with obsessive perfectionist brains like hearing the same sound again and again and again, differences are "errors."

Anyway, Yamaha "Super Articulation Voices" for one.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #14
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
I leaves the question, if that what we perceive as sound is ONLY the vibration of air or if there is the possibility that there's other aspects playing into it as well we haven't considered.
Once sound is simply voltage how would it know wether it used to be digital or analog ?
Old 3rd April 2017
  #15
Lives for gear
What you're hearing between these devices has little to do with analog vs digital, but much more to do with the recording/production/sampling process and the implementation and mapping of them. It's the same reason why all analog recordings supposedly sound better than digital or vice versa.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #16
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeminiT View Post
, the sound is more like how I hear it when I sing to myself,
Have to point out that how you hear your voice yourself when singing (or talking for that matter) is always different to how it's heard by others for solid physical reasons.
Unless your digital recording is badly engineered or using poor quality converters etc then, assuming mic /monitoring is the same, then it will be more accurate / quieter than your analogue tape route.
So you prefer the taped sound - great - go with it. No need for pseudo theories regarding digitisation of analogue signals and data sampling.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Dammit i thought i could avoid the vs crap. This is about these particular sample. I think kiwi was the only one to answer adequately. Maybe i should have phrased the title differently. This is the first time i would like the mods to censor some answers because they arent productive.

Again, i dont care which is a better format. There is no better format, it whatever works. But, and i have heard this from other people as well, brass samples always seem to be synthetic. You can always tell they are fake. And to the people talking about the chamberlin sounding real because its in a room or fake because of the mechanical sounds, that completely misses the point. Look up the other videos where it is recorded directly. It sound like a real horn recorded on somewhat low quality but acceptable tape.which it is. And the brass samples sound like a synthesizer, and no one apart from being buried under a whole orchestra, could be fooled by them.

Perhaps it has to do with sample length, but whatever it is, maybe samplers need to take a page out of harry chamberlins book. However, i have chamberlin samples on my m-tron software, and they are nowhere near as real sounding. Thats what makes me think it is the tape, but i have no idea.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
In
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aural Endeavors View Post
What you're hearing between these devices has little to do with analog vs digital, but much more to do with the recording/production/sampling process and the implementation and mapping of them. It's the same reason why all analog recordings supposedly sound better than digital or vice versa.
That sems like a logical and satisfying answer that i could accept. However, there is one problem: my chambelin samples also sound fake. Theroetically since each note on the small keyboard is sampled, it should sound identical given the transparency of digital. And we have to assume they are using high quality sampling. But i do agree that when doing things like the kronos samples, they are probabaly doing it as sterile as possible going for consistency rather than realism. So every envelope and embouchure is going to sound the same for each note. Perhaps it could pass as real with single notes, but once you get into intervals and chords you really hear the fakeness.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #19
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
That sems like a logical and satisfying answer that i could accept. However, there is one problem: my chambelin samples also sound fake. Theroetically since each note on the small keyboard is sampled, it should sound identical given the transparency of digital.
And if you sample each note several times and then do round robin...

I mean, the Chamberlain recording in the OP is digital, and lossy encoded to boot. It can't be that digital is taking anything away.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #20
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
I leaves the question, if that what we perceive as sound is ONLY the vibration of air or if there is the possibility that there's other aspects playing into it as well we haven't considered.
I'm sure that Higgs bosons enter through microphones and impart their magic as the sound is recorded to tape.

Seriously--if--and there is no reason at all to speculate that there might be--there is a transmission medium and human receptors for it that are unknown, then we're not doing anything to record it--analogue or digital.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #21
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
-Fire up Pro Tools
-Record that Chamberlin at 48k (OK, 96 if you must)
-No EQ, noFX, match volume... play the Chamberlin and then the digi recording of the Chamberlin.
-Listening to the two randomly over multiple plays, tell me accurately, without error, which is which every time.
-Good luck.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Mr.HOLMES's Avatar
The question is if you can do artistic work with sample libraries.

The answer is:
Yes, you can.

If you have the know-how of Orchestration, for example, you can create realistic sounding Orchestra works.
Most people fail because they do not have the know how to write for a special set of instrumentation.

That is why I still hire players, experts of their instrument.
A B3 Player knows how to treat the B3 samples best, and after he did it it starts to sound more realistic.

Some instruments are difficult to sample, sure.... and you may never capture the vibe of real humans in one room.
But you can do great works with sample libraries, no doubt....
Old 3rd April 2017
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
We can speculate on the reasons, but does anyone disagree that the chamberlin sounds beyond a damn sight more realistic?
I think we allow ourselves some wiggle room when it comes to the term "realistic," depending on what we imagine and the outcome we hope for. Like with electric train layouts and open-casket funerals.

Quote:
... i have never heard a brass sample that fooled me.
Actually, you're almost certainly fooled by brass samples all the time. Between the improved quality of sample libraries and the evolved strategies of arranging and orchestrating, people these days are so good at fooling you that the question never even comes to mind.

Last edited by Brent Hahn; 3rd April 2017 at 04:28 PM..
Old 3rd April 2017
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeminiT View Post
I go with what my ears tell me.
Me, too!

And, you know, unlike many here, I've heard a lot of unamplified musical performances from string quartets to symphonies -- I've attended something like 170 symphonic concerts and heard scores of string quartets. In the studio I've recorded most classes of acoustic instruments from harpsichords to brass and wind sections to celtic bagpipes, solo strings, ensembles. My experience freelancing in commercial studios was during the analog era; I've owned 10 analog tape decks, 5 of them multitrack.

And -- what do you know? -- the conclusions drawn from my long experience listening to and recording real acoustic instruments is backed up by science and by practical, real world objective measurement using the best analytical tools we have at our disposal -- including the same analytical tools used to test and hone the design and guide the improvement of analog recording systems.


When one's ears tell him one thing -- and both science and practical measurement back that up -- I consider that worthy of a high degree of personal confidence.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #25
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I think we allow ourselves some wiggle room when it comes to the term "realistic," depending on what we imagine and the outcome we hope for.
The trouble is what does "realistic" mean? Does it mean it sounds the way you want it to?

I think there's an aspect of this aside from articulations. One can do a brass section like, say, "Off The Wall" (Michael Jackson) with FM8...
Old 3rd April 2017
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
Okay, i am not trying to get in a debate or rehash the analog vs digital debate, thats been done ad vomitum. They both work, and talking about which is better is boring. However, after hearing the chamberlin m1 keyboard from the 50s i think, and hearing the samples of horns and flute, and then listening to thw state of the art modern digital sample of brass from the korg kronos, i am convinced once again, despite whats on paper and specs, that digital is doing something that we cant quantify yet. I dont want to debate it, i just want to know you ideas about what it might be. Check these out:
[vids]

We can speculate on the reasons, but does anyone disagree that the chamberlin sounds beyond a damn sight more realistic? It sounds like the horns could be in the room to me. Yet i have never heard a brass sample that fooled me. If digital is as perfect as it looks on paper, why does it sound so fake in some cases? And in my experience, reording to 1" 8 track also sounds more realistic than digital. Thats not necessarily good, and digital can sound more polished, but something is going on that we cant understand right now. Perhaps it has something to do with electromagnetic fields that cannot be captured in binary, i have no idea.please enlighten me.

Then again the analog sound of the chamberlin is being captured by digital so who the fock knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
Dammit i thought i could avoid the vs crap. This is about these particular sample. I think kiwi was the only one to answer adequately. Maybe i should have phrased the title differently. This is the first time i would like the mods to censor some answers because they arent productive.

Again, i dont care which is a better format. There is no better format, it whatever works. But, and i have heard this from other people as well, brass samples always seem to be synthetic. You can always tell they are fake. And to the people talking about the chamberlin sounding real because its in a room or fake because of the mechanical sounds, that completely misses the point. Look up the other videos where it is recorded directly. It sound like a real horn recorded on somewhat low quality but acceptable tape.which it is. And the brass samples sound like a synthesizer, and no one apart from being buried under a whole orchestra, could be fooled by them.

Perhaps it has to do with sample length, but whatever it is, maybe samplers need to take a page out of harry chamberlins book. However, i have chamberlin samples on my m-tron software, and they are nowhere near as real sounding. Thats what makes me think it is the tape, but i have no idea.
Sorry if my response led the conversation astray from what you wanted to discuss!

I guess, if anything, it was your use of the term realistic in your first post that confused me and took me off your intended beam.


For what its worth, I definitely see the charm of instruments like the Chamberlin and its successor, the more 'mass-produced' (I've seen like two in my life up close, I think ) Mellotron. I think they can provide some really cool sounds. But 'realistic' is not a term I would use to describe most of them. By a long stretch. Useful, cool, impactful, perhaps, even 'mysterious'... but 'realistic' isn't a word I'd use.

Anyhow, sorry for the distraction.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwe View Post
[...]


Actually, some people with obsessive perfectionist brains like hearing the same sound again and again and again, differences are "errors."

[...]
It's been suggested (by more than a few) that I have obsessive qualities to my nature -- but I have to tell you that having had a live echo loop synth act through most of the 90s, I am SO burned out by repetition that that sounds like my idea of hell. No, it is my idea of hell. (Hope I'm not tempting the Fates here.)
Old 3rd April 2017
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I think we allow ourselves some wiggle room when it comes to the term "realistic," depending on what we imagine and the outcome we hope for. Like with electric train layouts and open-casket funerals.
What i meant was that it sounds like a guy llaying a horn being recorded, and not a machine. You can define realism however you want, but i dont seehow anyone could disagree that using my definition the chamberlin sounds more real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Actually, you're almost certainly fooled by brass samples all the time. Between the improved quality of sample libraries and the evolved strategies of arranging and orchestrating, people these days are so good at fooling you that the question never even comes to mind.
Thats a little nitpicky. Thats like saying you have been fooled by special effects in a movie. Its not that you wouldnt know its fake if you analyzed it, its just that you havent thought to analyze it.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Here's the deal: If you want to accurately reproduce an audio signal, modern digital produces a far more accurate copy (by every objective measure we have at our disposal) than does analog tape or grooved disk. The book you were reading years ago notwithstanding, the science of why this is so is not controversial or even arguable. Undoubtedly, that sounds doctrinaire, but if one takes the time to understand the physics of audio and the math of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem, it becomes head-slapping clear.

Now, what people prefer is a whole other matter, of course. That can't be objectively measured because it is the province of the individual (and probably of the individual at any one time in his life).

There can be all sorts of reasons one might prefer the greater distortion/lower fidelity/accuracy of analog over digital for one or more tasks. It's a matter of preference, personal aesthetic.

And, indeed, he might even reasonably describe it as giving him the impression of greater 'reality.' But he should not confuse that impression with objective, measurable reality.

I know that sounds pedantic but this is a very well-discussed topic and many have run out of patience for the 'post-factual' approach to an endeavor which is part art and part science. One can gracefully ignore the nitty gritty of the science and simply learn to use the engines of our art form -- but if he does, he should probably refrain from presenting personal theories or what I guess we might now call 'alternative' science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
I leaves the question, if that what we perceive as sound is ONLY the vibration of air or if there is the possibility that there's other aspects playing into it as well we haven't considered. As an analogy, in the middle ages the model of matter had, for example concerning food, not only the aspects of dead matter but aspects of elements (today also found in ayurveda medicine) and "qualities" (later differentiated in vitamins and - depending on who you ask - information). To sum it up, if we consider our knowledge complete and rule out the possibility that there is more to know, pretending omniscience, we're in all likelyhood fooling ourself. Every time in history where science pretended they reached the end of what is to know about something, it was wrong. Even if the scientists didn't like it ;-) and fought tooth and nails to deny - remember the advent of quantum science? Remember "junk DNA"? The butt end of jokes today, like "bumblebees can't fly" or “Rail travel at high speeds is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” (quote Dionysius Lardner, who is to science today like the guy who turned down the Beatles because guitar music is over, a funny footnote in history)
Regarding the aspect of Nyquist's method and 44.1 sampling rate to accurately render vibration below it's border frequency, including phase and whatnot - IF, IFFF the engineering is solid (a completely different topic), that's working. It's still no proof that science ends here.
If one takes a good look at what I wrote, there's nothing I wrote that necessitates or even suggests 'omniscience' -- and, indeed, the notion of omniscience is completely antithetical to Science and the Scientific Method, which is predicated on the notion that it is only by investigating, testing, retesting, discussing and then reinvestigating in a continuous cycle that we move our scientific understanding forward incrementally. Science is, in at least a poetic sense, a sort of exemplar of Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox, always getting closer, but always an ever-shrinking distance away from the ultimate destination.
Old 3rd April 2017
  #30
qwe
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unfiltered420 View Post
Thats a little nitpicky. Thats like saying you have been fooled by special effects in a movie. Its not that you wouldnt know its fake if you analyzed it, its just that you havent thought to analyze it.
Have you seen the end credits where the number of 3D artists working on the average "tentpole" movie goes on and on and on?

There's just no way any of us haven't been "fooled" by special FX in movies even when looking for it. It's everywhere. Yes, CGI when poorly done is unconvincing in an "uncanny valley" way, but that's not the point.

Anyway, it seems like an incredibly tenious link to the subject matter in hand, except that you've probably been fooled by "hybrid" movie scores, being unaware which tracks were recorded live and which use samples, too. Even if you were listening for it.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump